On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you want to add #pragma unroll back to the release notes for 3.6? > Thanks for the reminder! I went ahead and submitted the change (r230294). It is virtually identical to what was approved for the 3.5 branch. I just added a bit about being able to equivalently express the unroll hints using "#pragma clang loop" form. Thanks! Mark > > - Hans > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Mark Heffernan <[email protected]> wrote: > > And here are the patches... > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Mark Heffernan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, forgot about this :-( Here's the patched to release_35 which > >> removes reference to unroll-related pragmas and the respective metadata > as > >> discussed earlier in the thread. These are doc-only (*.rst) patches. > OK? > >> > >> Bill, can these be merged to the release branch? Background: 3.5 was > cut > >> in the middle of a number of changes to support the unroll pragma. > Since > >> the cut, the metadata and unroll pragma syntax have changed and a > couple of > >> small bug fixes went in. These doc patches remove any reference to the > >> unroll pragma and metadata so we don't have to carry forward support > for the > >> older syntax. Also, this avoid publicizing the unroll pragmas which at > the > >> time of the cut had a couple of unpatched bugs. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> Mark > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> > From: "Mark Heffernan" <[email protected]> > >>> > To: "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]> > >>> > Cc: "Eric Christopher" <[email protected]>, "cfe-commits" > >>> > <[email protected]>, [email protected], > >>> > "Aaron Ballman" <[email protected]> > >>> > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 6:22:16 PM > >>> > Subject: Re: release_35 patches for unroll pragma > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Hal Finkel < [email protected] > > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Unfortunately, I was on vacation that week, and I'm still playing > >>> > catch-up on my e-mail... > >>> > > >>> > At this point I think it is too late to pull in these kinds of > >>> > changes, but, if we didn't previously, we should add auto-upgrade > >>> > support for the renamed metadata. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Recently got back from vacation myself... Earlier in the thread there > >>> > was the suggestion of removing mention of the unroll pragma and > >>> > metadata from the 3.5 docs because support for it is incomplete. I > >>> > agree and I'll send out a patch for this. Would it still be > >>> > necessary to add the auto-upgrade support since the unroll pragma > >>> > and associated metadata would not be officially supported? > >>> > >>> If it is not documented nor officially supported, probably not. > >>> > >>> -Hal > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Mark > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -Hal > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > -eric > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Hal Finkel > >>> > Assistant Computational Scientist > >>> > Leadership Computing Facility > >>> > Argonne National Laboratory > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Hal Finkel > >>> Assistant Computational Scientist > >>> Leadership Computing Facility > >>> Argonne National Laboratory > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cfe-commits mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
